Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "Can you get a controller in the tower that will at least let us land?"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: "Can you get a controller in the tower that will at least let us land?"  (Read 11435 times)
tca1937
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: August 04, 2013, 05:11:14 AM »

I flew KOA-SJC on Alaska 876 on 26 July 2013. We did two go-arounds so I pulled up the audio to see what happened. KSJC was operating only 30L and it seemed there was some separation issues. The AS 876 pilots were clearly not pleased. On the 3rd try, the tower held all departures until we landed.

Unfortunately, the tower side of the conversation cannot be heard. But, the pilot communications are quite clear and include some pretty harsh language.

"We're done with this, we gotta get in the next time", "You're kidding", "We need a frequency - NOW", "We need a different tower controller", "Don't have time for this", "I'm going to make it a little wider guys"

I included some other relevant communications (ground communications, a possible pilot deviation, etc). This is my first audio file so hopefully it works.

Eric
Logged
StuSEL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2013, 12:14:20 PM »

I don't understand why they decided to be so rude with NORCAL, who has nothing to do with the situation. In the first attempt they were 14 miles out, the second 12 miles out. When they tell NORCAL "And you're not gonna turn me in too tight," after a 14 and 12 miles final?

IMO there are better ways to handle things with tower than yelling on the frequency.
Logged

CFI
phil-s
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2013, 11:11:30 PM »

Not a pilot or ATC, but the "No you don't" was the only "yelling" I heard directed at NORCAL, though definitions of "yelling' vary widely. OTOH, I don't understand the "we gotta get in the next time". If they had a fuel issue, there are well defined procedures for declaring this. 
Logged
Rick108
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2013, 08:35:55 AM »

I believe they were only short of patience, not fuel.  It's not clear from just the audio what the actual spacing was, but for round 1 it sounds like they were given 180 kts and following a Citation at 160 kts, with something like 5 miles spacing?  Sounds a little tight to be launching a departure between those two arrivals!  shocked  Less clear what happened the second round, but I can imagine the frustration watching yet another aircraft cleared for takeoff when he's on short final, if in fact that's what happened.  I didn't hear any "yelling" either - more like "professional frustration".  Well, maybe right on the edge...  wink
Logged
Comfirm31L
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2013, 09:35:30 AM »

Weak.
Logged
gonzo5252
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2013, 10:46:40 PM »

Weak.

Who or what is weak? Two go-arounds because somebody couldn't do their job would piss me off.   
Logged
gtfguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2013, 01:18:37 AM »

 shocked
That was crazy....
Logged
Z06_Mir
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2013, 07:09:50 PM »

What's with the pilot deviation for GP? Anyone know?
Logged
ArbitrageMan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2013, 10:12:32 PM »

Probably one of the more interesting clips I've heard in a long time.
Logged
Rick108
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2013, 10:14:47 AM »

What's with the pilot deviation for GP? Anyone know?
This is just speculation, but according to FlightAware, they were given the LOUPE ONE departure, so they probably should have leveled at 5000.  The track log (one minute samples) shows them still climbing at 5100', but then at 4200' a minute later (probably after given the "descend immediately to 4000").  So, possibly they blew through their altitude on the departure, which would have prompted "possible pilot deviation, call ..." from NORCAL.

N26GP is a Lear 35, so you know it wants to climb!

Yes, this IS an interesting clip - lots of stuff going on here...
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 10:18:34 AM by Rick108 » Logged
JetScan1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659


« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2013, 08:50:23 AM »

Quote
So, possibly they blew through their altitude on the departure, which would have prompted "possible pilot deviation, call ..." from NORCAL.

re: N26GP

Look at their track on flightaware. At time 17:30 on the KSJC-Dep archive you can hear N26GP check in with Departure and report "2.7 climbing for 5", then at 18:45 (75 seconds later) they ask "do you want a heading of 300", at which point the controller gives them an immediate right turn to heading 090.

The LOUPE1 departure specifies climb runway heading to 1.8 DME from the SJC VOR then turn right to heading 120. It would appear from their flightaware track that N26GP maintained runway heading (300) until around 7 nautical miles from the SJC VOR before they started to turn. Now why did they stay on the 300 heading, was it an instruction from Tower or maybe some confusion on the position of the overshooting ASA876 ?

By maintaining the 300 degree heading N26GP's track appeared to put them into conflict with traffic landing on runway 28R into KSFO. At time 16:45 on the KFSO-Final archive you can hear AAL881, a Boeing 737-800, report the Bridge in sight and then cleared to 4000, then 5 seconds later cleared for the visual runway 28R. Then at time 18:00, AAL881 reports they are responding to an RA (TCAS Resolution Advisory), then shortly after they are cleared to a heading 360 and cleared to 6000, then vectored around for another approach.

Back on the KJSC-DEP archive at time 19:30, N26GP is told to immediately maintain 4000 feet, then at 20:10, Departure advises N26GP of traffic at 11 o'clock and 4 miles at 4000 a westbound B737.

Speculation on my part, but I suspect that is the deviation ATC is talking about ?

 
Logged
Rick108
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2013, 09:36:25 AM »

JetScan1, your analysis makes sense - you obviously dug a lot deeper than I did!  Without his actual clearance and departure instructions, it's still hard to tell exactly who messed up, but the additional info you found on the SFO feed helps fill in the blanks.  Thanks for the good information!
Logged
silagi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68



« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2013, 11:33:54 AM »

Looking at the Flightaware track, N26GP went too far north before starting his turn back on the Loupe departure.  Pilots are supposed to start their turn back on the Loupe departure at 1.8 DME from the SJC VOR and climb to a maximum of 5000 ft however ATC usually clears them to only 4000ft on departure.  He climbed too high and went way too far before starting his turn.
Logged
yrp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2013, 09:56:08 PM »

I have to say, having spent a bit of time on both sides of the microphone, the Alaskan pilot was bordering on unprofessional.  Things happen in ATC, single runway ops means they were maybe pushing things, and yes a couple of misjudgements.  Or possibly the tower controller was just running it tight and the departing pilots were slow on the mark -- probably used to the dual runways at SJC and not expecting that kind of tight operation.

In any case there are ways to say it.  The Alaskan guys just sounded churlish.  "You're kidding" on frequency is not good airmanship.  From that point, it would not have been clear to the controller if they were really short on patience or fuel.  Better to says something like "need to get in next time or we will be getting low on fuel".

The don't-turn-in-too-tight stage was valid though, makes me think they might actually have been low on fuel.  No point in haste-makes-waste on the third try.
Logged
InterpreDemon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427



« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2013, 10:40:51 PM »

What was the Wx at the time? Cannot understand how the AK pilot could be low on fuel if it was his primary destination.
Logged

Feed Purveyor:
KJFK ARINC
KHPN ATIS
(KJFK) NY DEP Liberty East
HF CAR-A  3455/5550/6577/8846/11396
HF ARINC LDOC  6640/8933
HF NY VOLMET  6604

Complaints should be addressed to: City Hall
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!